God and the United States are merged very strongly.

This needs a thread all by its self. Some are having trouble in understanding elementary school civics. In elementary civics we teach the "separation o church and state" whereas we do not teach "separation of state and God." As difficult as this concept is for some liberals who try to twist American freedom into some type of humanism and moral relativity, Americans have chosen an absolute God as the bases of government. Why can some of you not see our freedoms folks not grasp the truth that Americans have never given up their faith in God? Americans have used the instructions of God to build on the Rock our freedoms and liberties into our government.

America is unique among democratic countries because we have kept God as a provider of our self-evident rights. If we allow humanist and liberals to take God out of government. as we rightly have done the church. we no longer have an authority for America;s greatness. When God is gone then we are gone as a unique country and our freedoms and liberties are gone.

As an outsider unsure of all the details of how the relationship between the State and aspects of religion is worked out. What is there within your legislation regarding this and how is it understood? Is it the 1st Amendment to your Constitution interpreted by the Supreme Court, or is that incorrect?

Also, the 1st amendment says that Congress shall make no law etc... Does this mean theoretically that individual states could establish a religion or not, just that a national religion may not be established?

As an outsider unsure of all the details of how the relationship between the State and aspects of religion is worked out. What is there within your legislation regarding this and how is it understood? Is it the 1st Amendment to your Constitution interpreted by the Supreme Court, or is that incorrect?

Also, the 1st. amendment says that Congress shall make no law etc... Does this mean theoretically that individual states could establish a religion or not, just that a national religion may not be established?

Click to expand...

What the ist. amendment means is that you are free to say what God is for yourself and God does not have to be the God that the government says God is. One is free to say there is no God but as a nation we believe that God and not government gave us our rights and freedoms. We can not separate from God because we would then lose all our rights and freedoms by default. The church is out of Gov. but God is in.

Thank you brother Creech, if you liked what was pointed out about the first Amendment of the American Constitution, you are going to love the following truth that has so long been overlooked. When the Constitution was written and adopted there were many religions and ways of worshiping God among the colonies. There were of course Anglicans, Quakers, Puritans, very few Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics, Lutherans, a few Deist, Calvinist, etc. Yet, when the First Amendment was adopted, Americans decided that God had been explained and worship defined well enough that nothing new about God and religion needed to be said. Every person knew well from where their rights came, God was a self-evident fact and did not need any prolonged debate to prove that God was and He was always going to be our Premise for a Constitutional Democracy It was intended that God was to be the entire Premise for government.Separation of God and state,how dumb that is!

Therefore, what do you think the very first amendment to the Constitution would announce to all the various opinions of God, the one premise for every thing in government and man's pursuit of happiness be? It is so simple, so logical, so common sense like, such a great idea that it had to be the one true God. God was and is whatever he was and needed no further explanation.

Thus,Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The fact is that we had plenty of a definition of God and religion and the state had no further need to explain religion or God.Without the God that the Americans had already explained, there was nothing in the Constitution that had any meaning whatsoever. It was the God of the Constitution that gave all Americans their human rights. It was well understood by everybody that we were one nation under God and citizens could not find a single right that they had that did not come from God.

There, my brothers, I have given you the correct meaning of making the establishment of religion (in government). We had the one true God and needed no new god in government. Now , Are you not happy that the Gadfly was here to explain this simple truth so as to remove the traps that the philosophy of phenomenology, liberalism and humanism has planted into the uninformed minds of those just beginning to learn about Christ?

Before the liberals throw a counter attack to discredit what was just said, the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent another religion or foreign government from replacing the one God we had already selected to be the God of our nation. There is absolutely nothing illogical or out of historical context with the above interpretation. This is not just my opinion, this is hard rock factual.

Before the liberals throw a counter attack to discredit what was just said, the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent another religion or foreign government from replacing the one God we had already selected to be the God of our nation. There is absolutely nothing illogical or out of historical context with the above interpretation. This is not just my opinion, this is hard rock factual.

Click to expand...

Have you read "The Covenant" by Tim Ballard. He goes into the basis for America's connect to God and what they meant for America. It also cautions us to be wary of the consequences for abandoning that God.

But, I have to disagree with you Gadfly. The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with foreign governments or religions. It is a statement that Americans do have the right to worship as they choose and to worship the God that they choose. God allows us the free will to make this decision, good or bad. He has also told us and shown us time and time again that making the right choice (Him) results in prosperity and happiness. He has also shown us that making the bad choice ("foreign" gods and idols) result in exile, slavery, misery, and death.

The modern American has chosen the foreign gods and idols. The God of Israel and Father of Jesus is not glitzy enough for most Americans. Even the so-called christian churchgoers are just there to get their ticket punched so they can hurry back to their idols. Give them the choice between "exciting" and "good" and "exciting wins almost every time.

God is letting us march ourselves into slavery. We won't be wearing chains or making bricks without straw, but we'll be slaves all the same. The 1st amendment allows that because the entire Constitution was written for a just and moral people. Today, the progressive vision of "justice" first demands that we ignore "morality". We let people rewrite our history so that we only learn of things we should be ashamed of. They tell us that we can't be proud of our accomplishments. They tell us that our greatest strength is in our collective surrender to everything that we instinctlvely know is wrong.

Just as God gave Adam and Eve a choice and they chose wrong, He gave us a choice with the 1st Amendment. We could have emulated Jesus in the garden, but we chose to follow Eve.

The good news is that we can, individually, choose to follow Jesus but that road may become very rocky as our Earthly masters begin to try and stop us.

I really don't care what the Constitution does or does not say on this. God did not want Israel to have a king, but wanted to be King himself. Even though the role of the king was to serve as God's agent, God knew that human creatures are fallible. When we wed the religion and state too closely to one another, the problem is not that a state religion develops, but that religion is asked to serve the needs and purpose of the state and God is asked to bless what is often actually blasphemy. God didn't want that for Israel and I don't believe he wants it for the US either.

I really don't care what the Constitution does or does not say on this. God did not want Israel to have a king, but wanted to be King himself. Even though the role of the king was to serve as God's agent, God knew that human creatures are fallible. When we wed the religion and state too closely to one another, the problem is not that a state religion develops, but that religion is asked to serve the needs and purpose of the state and God is asked to bless what is often actually blasphemy. God didn't want that for Israel and I don't believe he wants it for the US either.

Click to expand...

Because people do not care what the Constitution says is why we need it. It is because men left alone. selfish and narcissistic people will change the law to suit their individual lusts. Americans where of the opinion that no one religion was good enough to tell every body else to live. They were worried that if any one church had power with the state, a church like the Church of England or the Roman church would re-emerge. This was the first and greatest concern the colonies had when it came to religion. They simply addressed their biggest religious concern first They like you knew religion and state did not mix well but they knew that God was the source of all freedoms and liberties; therefore, they chose to keep the God we had in the government of the USA; but government(CONGRESS) was not to allow any new religion to creep into government. Religion, a nee on

As has been pointed out,but not discussed very well, liberalism and humanism violates the First Amendment. The danger is that ministers of God do not seemingly understand that these are two new religions that attempts to take God completely out of government. What Christians have been led to think is that any references to God are unconstitutional.

With all this said, there is still a new religion and an anti-God philosophy creeping into the Constitution, attempting to change all our laws to suit their own lusts. That new religion is called liberalism. or more specifically, it is called humanism. Liberalism and humanism are two philosophies that are opposed to God, Christianity, and each and every type of the definition of a God that influences the judgment of men and is involved in the affairs of men.

I certainly do care what the Constitution says on many levels. I especially value it for the freedoms it enumerates and the rights and privileges of botht he governed and the government it articulates. What I don't care about is to think that things are a particular way just because it says they are on a piece of paper, even a piece of paper as important as the Constitution.

The Constitution may declare a freedom, but I don't have it if the reality is that others have conspired to take that freedom away despite what the Constitution says. Certainly there are many such instances that one could cite in the history of our country. Some of them have been criminal, some of them have been culturally imposed, and some of them have even been by act of one or more pieces of the government itself. Each has been settled in their own unique ways by law enforcement, prophetic preaching, judicial action, and who knows how other many ways if one was to start citing specific instances.

With respect to God's place within the life of a nation, the best the Constitution can do is give the views of a small group of humans at a particular point in time. But God's rightful place is NOT determined by words on a piece of paper. God's place, God's authority, God's power, God's privilege is not determined by people at all. Not the people who wish to support nor the people who wish to ignore, even deny, God. God is sovereign. The Constitution might be the law of the land, but it is God who is still God. So, with respect to God's place in our society, our country, our government, I don't really care what the Constitution says (though, of course, I care about human opinion and law to some extent) for the truth about these things are not to be found in a human document, but in God himself.

I certainly do care what the Constitution says on many levels. I especially value it for the freedoms it enumerates and the rights and privileges of botht he governed and the government it articulates. What I don't care about is to think that things are a particular way just because it says they are on a piece of paper, even a piece of paper as important as the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Yes. Revision in what you just said, needs some revision in my opinion, to explain what you just said. TO me you are saying you are going to believe what you believe regardless what is written on paper whether it be what the country believes or the Bible teaches (although I know that is not your position)

The Constitution may declare a freedom, but I don't have it if the reality is that others have conspired to take that freedom away despite what the Constitution says. Certainly there are many such instances that one could cite in the history of our country. Some of them have been criminal, some of them have been culturally imposed, and some of them have even been by act of one or more pieces of the government itself. Each has been settled in their own unique ways by law enforcement, prophetic preaching, judicial action, and who knows how other many ways if one was to start citing specific instances.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Maybe its just me, but I do no understand what you just said.

With respect to God's place within the life of a nation, the best the Constitution can do is give the views of a small group of humans at a particular point in time. But God's rightful place is NOT determined by words on a piece of paper. God's place, God's authority, God's power, God's privilege is not determined by people at all. Not the people who wish to support nor the people who wish to ignore, even deny, God. God is sovereign. The Constitution might be the law of the land, but it is God who is still God. So, with respect to God's place in our society, our country, our government, I don't really care what the Constitution says (though, of course, I care about human opinion and law to some extent) for the truth about these things are not to be found in a human document, but in God himself

Click to expand...

]The point I am making is that the Constitution is premised by God's laws but I apologies for not understanding what on earth you are saying but I would be interested to hear a more clear explanation.

I appreciate your willingness to hear a more clear explanation. Since, based on your response to my first post, you didn't appear to understand my initial comment and you confess you don't understand my second, it may be that I need to let someone else see if they can provide that.

In keeping with the theme in this thread, I doubt that any Christian would be unhappy with the historical explanation the OP has offered for the Constitution and the First Amendment. My historical explanation untwists the explanation humanist have managed to place on the Constitution regarding their attempt to force God out of our culture. That is what liberalism and humanism wants to happen and this evil force does attempt to replace social ethics based on Scripture with a relative morality based on atheistic humanism.

God does expect the Methodist and Wesleyan Churches to respond against this new twisted and very narrow vision of liberalism that has sneaked into the culture. Liberalism, began in Europe, on to France and now is invading American politics, has always been an anti-culture argument against both the church first and then against God. They have the idea that if God is eliminated from the Constitution , the liberals believe they can get God out of our lives and then they will be free to live and lust as they please. That is exactly what this debate over human rights is all about, it is about the liberal's rights to sin freely, a right not granted by God.

it is about the liberal's rights to sin freely, a right not granted by God.

Click to expand...

Does not God created us with the ability to sin and give us the freedom to make such a choice? It seems to me that it is indeed a right granted by God. But just because it is granted doesn't mean we should choose it. We would be well advised to realize that just because one is free to do something does not make it wise to so do. There are consequences to sin, and no amount of trying to separate church and state, not even if people were successful at "outlawing" God from public life, will change anything about those realities. Again, I don't care how people change or reinterpret the Constitution, God is still going to do what God is going to do.

Does not God created us with the ability to sin and give us the freedom to make such a choice? It seems to me that it is indeed a right granted by God. But just because it is granted doesn't mean we should choose it. We would be well advised to realize that just because one is free to do something does not make it wise to so do. There are consequences to sin, and no amount of trying to separate church and state, not even if people were successful at "outlawing" God from public life, will change anything about those realities. Again, I don't care how people change or reinterpret the Constitution, God is still going to do what God is going to do.

Click to expand...

All Christians should care how the Constitution is interpreted since we wrote it with the idea that God was the provider of its content and subject matter. If the Devil is hanging around, how do you think he is going to get you to see what God says about your rights and freedoms?

By the way, God did not create us to sin. The Devil talked us into sin just like liberalism does today. The job of a UMC minister is to talk men out of sin.

I do care about how the Constitution is interpreted. Maybe we have a problem of language here? I've found that in southern Illinois people use the phrase "I don't care to" as a substitute for "I am willing to" while in northern Illinois "I don't care to" would mean "I don't want to". It makes for some curious conversations until you realize that there are two different meanings to the same phrase. Though I don't remember having a similar problem when I lived in eastern Kentucky, there still might be regional differences that cause you to understand something different than what I mean when I say "I don't care how...". What I mean is that what people do and think is not relevant to what actually is on this topic. What people write or don't write about God does not make in actual impact on the nature and character of God. It is the ontological reality of God more than what one might think the Constitution does or does not say about God that is really important. In other words, we get our rights from God not because the Constitution says we do. We get our rights from God because God says that is to be so. If God did not ordain it to be so, no amount of such proclamatory statements in the Constitution or any other document could make it so. And if the Constitution did not recognize the source of our rights as being in God, that also would not change the reality that they are, because again it is God (not the Constitution or any other document) which makes it so.

since we wrote it with the idea that God was the provider of its content and subject matter.

Click to expand...

I dispute this is fact. First "we" didn't write it. It may be that you were trying to speak corporately and personifying the nation as a whole, but in this case it is important to realize that the writers of the Constitution was not a nation, but individuals.

What you say with regard to the ideas they held may be true; it may not be true. I don't know, and I don't think you or any person who wasn't among the actual authors can know with certainty. Lacking the ability to read their minds, the best we can do is to reason from what they told us in the Constitution itself and in other writings they produced commenting upon it. While I do agree they were mostly religious men, I don't see in those items that are available to use to draw conclusions from today sentiment that would lead me to posit as strong of a thesis statement as you have made.

If the Devil is hanging around, how do you think he is going to get you to see what God says about your rights and freedoms?

Click to expand...

How do you?

By the way, God did not create us to sin.

Click to expand...

No one has said that God did. Why do interject such a red herring into the conversation?

The Devil talked us into sin just like liberalism does today. The job of a UMC minister is to talk men out of sin.

Click to expand...

People hardly need to be talked into sin, it seems to come quite naturally to most of us as we set ourselves above God. Thus, I think you besmirch liberalism a little too much -- what is wrong with society is not liberalism fault, though liberalism might be one of many products (as is conservativism) of what is wrong with humanity. But beyond that I agree with this comment.

People hardly need to be talked into sin, it seems to come quite naturally to most of us as we set ourselves above God. Thus, I think you besmirch liberalism a little too much -- what is wrong with society is not liberalism fault, though liberalism might be one of many products (as is conservativism) of what is wrong with humanity. But beyond that I agree with this comment.

Click to expand...

I agree that people do not have to be talked into sin. The flesh wants to sin. Liberalism is the government of the flesh. It is all about giving people what others worked for, for excusing bad behavior, and for giving guilty consciences someone else to blame for their problems. It does not have room for a God who says that one thing is sin (or even an abomination) and another thing is holy. Liberalism loves a world of grays, where anything goes as long you don't get caught.

But, before my conservative brethren start high-fiving, we do have to recognize that the unrestrained capitalism of the last decade that puts people out of work in the name of pure profit and drives middle class families into poverty while the wealthy gain riches that they couldn't spend in a dozen lifetimes is only marginally better than liberalism. The profit motive can be a strong force for good but we all know what the bible says about the "love of money".

The problem with modern America is that we are all supposed to fit neatly into the "conservative" or "liberal" category, but most of us find ourselves struggling to live somewhere in the middle. On the whole, conservatism is better and considerably more moral than liberalism, but it is far from snow-white.

Pastor Gadfly said......America is unique among democratic countries because we have kept God as a provider of our self-evident rights. If we allow humanist and liberals to take God out of government. as we rightly have done the church. we no longer have an authority for America;s greatness. When God is gone then we are gone as a unique country and our freedoms and liberties are gone.

Click to expand...

Indeed dear Brother. Such wisdom........is of 'the Lord God Almighty' and I thank you....Indeed I bless you ........in Jesus as you are far away

When God is gone then we are gone as a unique country and our freedoms and liberties are gone.

The problem with modern America is that we are all supposed to fit neatly into the "conservative" or "liberal" category, but most of us find ourselves struggling to live somewhere in the middle. On the whole, conservatism is better and considerably more moral than liberalism, but it is far from snow-white.

Click to expand...

Some people think that we are supposed to fit into those categories. I don't think God does. As for conservatism being better or more moral than liberalism, I don't think so. While liberalism may suffer from the sin of antinomianism, idolatry appears to be the sin of conservatism. Can one truly claim that one sin is better and more moral than another? I cannot.

Some people think that we are supposed to fit into those categories. I don't think God does. As for conservatism being better or more moral than liberalism, I don't think so. While liberalism may suffer from the sin of antinomianism, idolatry appears to be the sin of conservatism. Can one truly claim that one sin is better and more moral than another? I cannot.

Click to expand...

Many of us do not support any other position than that of Christ's position. Conservative and liberal are better suited terms for politics and do not do anything for Christian fellowship but create anger and evil actions. What error can be found in simply saying you belong to Christ and then allowing that mind be in you?